User talk:ECKnibbs

Boston University Debate Society AfD

Hi there! I've completed your deletion nomination for this article - you can follow the debate here. It's probably a good idea for you to edit the debate and say why you think the article should be deleted. Tevildo 19:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure for nominating an AfD is described on the main AfD page - WP:AFD. The first stage is to put the tag {{subst:afd}} at the top of the article you're proposing for deletion. This will create the appropriate box on that article, with a red link to the debate page. Click on that link, and enter the tag {{subst:afd2|pg=<Page Name>|cat=|text=<Reason for deletion>}} ~~~~, changing <Page Name> to the name of the article and <Reason for deletion> to your reasons for nominating it. This tag, with the page name filled in, appears in the box created at the first stage - you can just copy and paste it. (Don't worry about the category, nobody uses them anyway). Finally, add the link to the discussion to the current AfD list, as you did for this article. Hope this helps! Tevildo 04:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MH

I noticed you participating in some pages that I am interested in, so I checked your usepage and saw that you are a graduate student in Medieval History. I am as well. Where are you attending, and what do you think / like about your studies? Lostcaesar 10:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I study at Leeds Uni. Enjoy your time in Heidelberg. =D

Lostcaesar 08:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 21:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CoQ

I am aware of the argument that Luke's account of travel is an error, but I do not know exactly where to trace this. Actually, I looked for R. E. Brown's little book on the infancy narratives in my university library but it is misplaced somewhere. That text I believe would talk about it. I don't know what Brown decides, but I would be willing to bet that he talks about the issue and his footnotes could be tracked.

I did write the article and when I did, being aware of the more or less erroneous view that a Roman census could not require travel, I put a little bit in there about it. I was not intending to be overly arguing this way or that but, as is typical, when there is only one hand in a project it will undoubtedly take a bit of shape from its sculptor. Thus, I am glad that others are contributing.

I somewhat backed into this matter by (amateurish) interest in Roman times (wherein here it coincided with my interest in sacred history &c), and so I did not come across the arguments against travel, though I was not unaware. There is a related issue on the ownership of property in that one would have to postulate just what manner of property Joseph had in that region and, more over, if he had property why he would be staying in a manger. Its not a very difficult problem (property comes in all forms and, more importantly, ownership was familial more than personal, in my understand), but it is a related issue.

Cheers, Caesar —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lostcaesar (talk • contribs) 18:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

RE: Nibbs, first, I have no idea about your biases and am not concerned with them, since your edits are, as far as I can tell, good faith and scholarly. You are quite right that I did not respond to your specific points. I thought I explained that I did not have the chance to yet because I needed to think about them some and then express my responce fittingly. I have no interest in an edit war either, and, frankly, I don't see that happening since you are intelligent and mature, two qualities rarely found in those whom I have had the occasion of an edit war with in the past. Our difference is only that, and I hope this is not rude, but I think you are a bit impatient, or at least a bit more hasty than I am concerning the points. Maybe that is unfair, and I am just more preoccupied with other things and cannot devote the attnetion to your points promptly enough. Whatever the case I am sure we will work together on the article. Lostcaesar 20:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crucifixion eclipse

Was there a Wikipedia rule stipulating more than one reference to justify the inclusion of material in an article? I don't recall seeing one in the invitation to edit. I do recall reading a suggestion to discuss prior to deleting major sections of texts. The paragraphs you transferred stemmed from cited tertiary studies. Tcisco 21:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]